BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 24th day of September 2011
Filed on : 09/11/2009
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 598/2009
Between
K.A. Suku, : Complainant
Kattikudiyil, Valamboor, (By Adv. Roy Varghgese,
N. Mazhuvannoor P.O., Kakaikal Apartments, Near Overbridge,
Ernakulam. K.K. Road, Kthrikadavu, Kochi-17)
Vs.
1.The Territory Manager, : Opposite parties
L.P.G Bottling Plant, (1st O.P.By Adv. P.U. Ziyad, C/o. P.S. Usuph
Bharat Petroleum Corporation, & Associates, Kalabhavan road,
Ambalamugal, Cochin-02. Ernakulam, Kochi-682 018)
2.The Manager, Easy Flames, (2nd O.P. absent)
Kodiyampara building,
Bharat Gas distributors,
Kolenchery-682 311.
3. The Manager,
Oriental Insurance Com. Ltd., (party- in –person)
Branch Office No.1, Deepthi
Building, PB No. 2372,
Pallimukku, Cochin-16.
4. M/s. United India Insurance (4th O.P. by Adv. Jayasree S,
Company Ltd., Rep. by C.C. No. 8/516, Siva Temple Lane
Divisional Manager, Divisional Near TDHS South Cherlai,
office No. 6, 133 Jahangir Building, Mattancherry, Cochin-2)
1st floor, M.G. Road,
Fort Mumbai – 400 001.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
Case of the complainant is as follows:
Complainant is a domestic LPG consumer of the 2nd opposite party. On 17-02-2009 he received a refill cylinder from the 2nd opposite party and the same was connected on 27-02-2009 while it was being used fire spread from the burner to regulator. Immediately, he threw the cylinder outside the premises and intimated the fire force and the police. However the cylinder exploded and due to the impart of the explosion his house was damaged and the same was assessed at Rs. 1,15,000/-. Complainant is entitled to get the above amount from the opposite parties. This complaint hence.
2.Version of the 1st opposite party.
The 1st opposite party duly intimated the accident to United India Insurance Company, their insurer and they paid a sum of Rs. 23,255/- to the complainant. The 1st opposite party requests to dismiss the complaint against them.
3. Defense of the 3rd opposite party.
The 3rd opposite party is an unnecessary party to the complaint. The 3rd opposite party issued multi-peril policy for LPG Dealers to the 2nd opposite party for the period from 18-10-2008 to 17-10-2009. As per the terms of the policy, the liability of the 3rd opposite party to indemnify the 2nd opposite party is limited to the damage to the property caused by or arising from installation of gas filled LPG cylinder in the premises of the customers or while such cylinders are transported from the premises of the 2nd opposite party to the customer’s premises. 3rd opposite party is not liable to indemnify the 2nd opposite party.
4. Contention of the 4th Additional opposite party.
The 4th opposite party is the insurer of the 1st opposite party. A surveyor was deputed to conduct the survey and assess the loss sustained by the complainant. He assessed the loss at Rs. 23,255/-. The said amount was paid to the complainant on 07-10-2009. The liability towards the insured has been fully and finally settled by the 4th opposite party. The 4th opposite party is not liable to pay any more amount to the complainant.
5. In spite of service of notice from this forum the 2nd opposite party did not respond to the same for their own reasons which goes to show that they do not respond to the responsibility on them. The complainant was examined as PW1, Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on his side. Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the 1st and 3rd opposite parties respectively. Witness for the 4th Additional opposite party was examined as DW1 and Ext. B3 was marked on their side. Heard the counsel for the contesting parties.
6. The only point that arose for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 1,15,000/- from the opposite parties or not in spite of having accepted the amount of Rs. 23,255/- the amount assessed by the surveyor.
7. Admittedly on 16-04-2009 DW1 the insurance surveyor appointed by the 4th opposite party examined and assessed the damages of the complainant at Rs. 23,255/- by Ext. B3 report. The 4th additional opposite party had paid the assessed amount to the complainant and the complainant received the same without demur. Though the complainant claims a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- and he having accepted the same. Nothing is on record to controvert the findings of DW1. the Hon’ble Supreme Court “held in the Venkateswara Syndicate Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2009 CTJ 1189 (SC) (CP) held that, insurance surveyor/surveyors are appointed by an insurance company under the provisions of the Insurance Act. Their reports are to be given due importance and there should be sufficient grounds for not agreeing with the assessment made by them” . There are no sufficient grounds raised to disagree with Ext B3. The lachrymal grounds raised by the complainant does not find sustainability in law coupled with that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds fast. Uncontroverted. 8. In view of the above to uphold the rule of law we are left with no option but to dismiss the complaint. Ordered accordingly.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 24th day of September 2011
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits:
Ext. A1 : Copy of report dt. 27-02-2009
A2 : Copy of report of Kunnathunadu Police Station.
A3 : Copy of estimate dt. 09-03-2009
A4 : True copy of letter dt. 09-02-2010
Opposite party’ s exhibits
Ext. B1 : LPG Accident report
B2 : LPG Dealers Package schedule
B3 : Survey report dt. 07-07-1009
Depositions:
PW1 : K.A. Suku
DW1 : Manoj G.B.
